Circumcision Will Be Preteen's Choice

Circumcision Will Be Preteen's Choice

Usually circumcision is done just after a baby's birth, but this isn't the case for a 12-year-old Oregon boy whose divorced parents have battled over the issue all the way to the state's Supreme Court.

On Friday, it ruled that the boy's wishes would be taken into consideration. The Associated Press article said:

The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.

Interested? Then

.

The case is being sent back to trial to figure out the boy's wishes. Since the parents are also in the midst of a custody dispute, it seems the youngster is being put in a difficult spot.

in the bible, when god gave his promise to abraham, he said all jew shall be circumcised. Yet, the kid should have his own say in the matter.If he is not a jew then he doesnt have to, if he is he should have the choice.

I don't understand the intro. She makes it sound like circumcision is customary, which just isn't the case. Here in the US, it's only the slight majority (around 60% and falling) and where I live in California, the majority are NOT circumcised (ever). I think this case is sick. Parents should be given a lot of leeway, but when it comes to hurting their children or tearing up their bodies, that's just wrong. The judge should have said the kid can do what he wants when he's of majority (18), but until then leave him alone. You can participate in almost everything in Judaism otherwise and if he really wants to do that to himself at 18 for whatever reason, that's his decision.

Yes, I realize that parents make all kinds of permanent decisions for their kids and that is their duty as a parent. I, however, don't believe it is ok for people to take off body parts that we were born with without an overwhelming medical reason to do so. To me, it is no different than cutting off an earlobe because you decided you don't like the way it looks. I personally just don't feel that it is ok to do for what amounts to cosmetic reasons (I wouldn't even pierce a baby's ears - it's not my body to make that choice for them!).
I've read the literature; I realize the difference in doing the surgery as an adult versus a newborn; I've seen the statistics as far as infection rates of uncircumcised men and their partners - I would still err on the side of keeping what you're born with.
I don't mean for this to turn into a "should you or shouldn't you" debate - I just want for people to think about all the factors before deciding. There are studies out there now that indicate that the pain of circumcision is real, and has a lasting effect on males. There are real risks to this surgery (as with any surgery). Just weigh the info and decide for yourself, don't let religion, tradition, or cultural expectations force you into a decision you may or may not be comfortable with. If you feel it isn't right to force on a 12 year old, just pause and take a thought to how you feel about doing it to a baby.

ufshutterbabe - I don't believe in circumcision and we didn't have it done to our son. But, I disagree that no parent has the right to make that decision for their children. We make all kinds of permanent decisions for our children that they could make as adults but not as children. The difference in this case is that the parents don't agree on what the proper decision is, and I don't think the child should be forced into the middle of the fight.
That said, I'm really glad to see the tide turning with far fewer parents doing this to their children these days.

these people are so stupid! the answer is no let him decide when he is 18. shutterbabe i kind of agree but i think the difference is also how much pain and trauma it is to have this surgery at 12 versus as a newborn who wont remember. either way i think parents should try to leave their kids bodies in tact until theyre old enough to choose for themselves.

And, I agree that the judge should have just ruled "no." Even to send it back while telling the courts that the child's wishes must be respected puts the kid in a terrible position to choose between pleasing his mother or his father. And, even if he is really close to his father now, not a lot of 12 year olds are going to say "sure, sign me up for that Dad!" How selfish of his father to turn his religion into a power struggle with his ex-wife over his kid.

I find it very interesting that people seem to agree that its ridiculous for a parent to circumcise the foreskin of a 12 year old because the parent converted to a religion. I find it just as ridiculous to circumcise a baby - what gives anyone the right to remove a body part of any one else without their consent? There are plenty of Jewish people who are starting to reject this ritual as well (see http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org)

Some parents can be so disgusting. This poor boy is being used as a tug of war rope. And, the concept of trying to force your 12 year old son to be circumcized because YOU converted to a new religion is just ridiculous.
I think the judge should have ruled that the answer was no. The boy can decide for himself when he's an adult. Until then, leave the kid alone. Would you allow a 12 year old girl to decide whether to surgically alter a body part? He's not old enough to make a decision like that.